 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to JRW2
Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive said by JRW2:One is competing on a competable issue, and one is done by monopolizing an "asset". What are you going to do when the NBC deal goes through and Comcast decides that ONLY Comcast subscribers are able to get NBC? No they aren't. All of Comcast's competitors are free to start their own Sports Nets and compete. Comcast doesn't own these sports leagues. And even for providers that own venues, they don't automatically own the broadcast rights; the teams and leagues still do.
There is nothing stopping DirecTV from creating DTVSportsNet or Verizon from creating VerizonSportsNet and approaching these leagues and teams with truckloads of cash.
What am I going to say about NBC? The same thing I say about NFL Sunday Ticket. If I want it that bad, I'll subscribe to the service that has it. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | I think we could establish some kind of regulation to prevent a content distributor from possessing exclusive rights to a local sports franchise, and given the times, this should include both HD and SD. NFL Sunday Ticket does not destroy this type of competition, as it still allows for people to have a choice on how they want to watch their local teams on TV. They should not have to choose between FiOS or Cablevision. That's going too far. |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
1 edit | I don't. I think if VZ wants some content bad enough they can bid for it.
Otherwise where does it end? Does CBS get to complain that they don't get to air House or American Idol and Fox complain that they don't get CSI or NCIS and both complain they don't get Monday Night Football? Should Microsoft complain that they don't get Mario or Nintendo complain they don't get Halo? Should every channel but one scream that they don't get to air the Super Bowl? The world is created from exclusives of what form or another. |
|
|
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | said by Z80A:I don't. I think if VZ wants some content bad enough they can bid for it. Yes, I agree. Provided that they are allowed to bid for it in the first place and the price is not set absurdly high, otherwise we again bring about an anti-competitive practice that would require regulation.
Verizon does not have to carry Comedy Central or any of the fleet of Viacom's offerings. Cablevision can drop the Food Network HD and leave customers in the area with an extremely limited number of options to get this channel. None of this is anti-competitive. There is a difference, and while it is subtle enough to bring about a legal fight in the courts, I believe there is need for some kind of outside control.
The consumers have very little tangible control over this market. The content distributors and content creators have largely excluded the normal supply and demand function that consumers typically enjoy with most other free market products. We are dealing with oligopolies with very little pricing competition that are looking to separate themselves from the other few giants with options and features. Buying the actual content and purposefully keeping it from the competition is doing the consumer absolutely no favors, and this should not be allowed to continue. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Z80A
said by Z80A:said by JRW2:One is competing on a competable issue, and one is done by monopolizing an "asset". What are you going to do when the NBC deal goes through and Comcast decides that ONLY Comcast subscribers are able to get NBC? No they aren't. All of Comcast's competitors are free to start their own Sports Nets and compete. Last time I checked there was only ONE 76ers team ONE Flyers team.
What am I going to say about NBC? The same thing I say about NFL Sunday Ticket. If I want it that bad, I'll subscribe to the service that has it. And if I don't live in a Comcast area? If Comcast monopolizes NBC and I live in a Charter area how is that in any way fair? Cable companies choose to not compete on each other terirtory. |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | correct, the motto of the isp's and telco's "no competition no choice and the big one no price drops. |
|
 Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to Z80A
You know who owns the Flyers and Sixers, right? |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| reply to jmn1207
But Comcast, Cablevision or others aren't the content creators when it comes to these sports offerings. Yes, CV may have the MSG network and own a venue but they do not own the broadcast rights. Broadcast rights are owned by the team and the league and if VZ or Fox Sports rolls in with a better offer the team and league will certainly take it.
These leagues and teams have no loyalty. It's business and the company who writes the biggest check gets the rights. And these leagues and teams have every right to milk every dime they can out of their properties. MLB is regulated by Congress as part of their gov't granted monopoly so they may be able to make some claim but the NBA, NHL and other leagues aren't. They can be as greedy as they like as watching sports is not a right, it's a privilege. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
1 edit | said by Z80A:Broadcast rights are owned by the team and the league and if VZ or Fox Sports rolls in with a better offer the team and league will certainly take it. I don't have a problem with Fox Sports putting forth money for these broadcast rights, but I don't think that Verizon or Comcast should be able to do this, as it creates unfair competitive advantages. Let Comcast and Verizon squabble over the right to carry Fox Sports in a fair manner, and if only one can make a deal, fine. But I don't think it should be allowed for a content distributor to own Fox Sports unless specific rules are put into place to prevent anti-competitive practices. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. |
|
Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to Z80A
But what about Comcast, who owns the channel, venue, and team? |
|
 JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
·Optimum Online
| reply to Z80A
said by Z80A:Yes, CV may have the MSG network and own a venue but they do not own the broadcast rights. Broadcast rights are owned by the team and the league and if VZ or Fox Sports rolls in with a better offer the team and league will certainly take it. CV owns the teams too. and they own the network, MSG, so they do control the broadcast rights too, in a way....
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| reply to Jodokast96
Then it's their property and if you want to watch you go with the provider who has it just like if you want an iPhone you have to go with AT&T, if you want NFL Sunday Ticket you have to get DirecTV or play Halo 3 you have to get an XBOX.
There is no right to watch the Knicks. They are a private team playing in a private venue on a privately owned network. I think a channel should be able to keep their multi-zillion dollar investment exclusive, that is unless they somehow used public funds to set it up or their regulated like MLB (under antitrust law). Otherwise it's the government coming in and telling a company they have to offer their private property to a competitor at a price set by the government (since CV wouldn't be able to say, Okay, the broadcast rights are a Trillion Dollars so obviously the gov't would have to say what "reasonable" means).
In other businesses, the law respects private property. The government can't compel Apple to license OS X for use on non-Apple hardware. The government can't compel Microsoft to port Halo 3 to Sony and Nintendo. The government can't compel Verizon to open FiOS lines to content competitors like they had with DSL. And the government shouldn't be forcing CV to "port" their privately owned content to Verizon.
If the FCC were to tell VZ they had to open their fiber to ISP competitors at "reasonable price" they would (as they had in the past) flip their wigs. But VZ expects CV to surrender their property at a rate set by the government. |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Not every team plays on privately owned property
We have seen many teams use taxpayer dollars to pay for new stadiums/arenas |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | But the city gets a cut of the revenues of those venues correct? Public funding IMO changes everything. If they want free dough, strings could certainly be attached. Then it's up to those team/stadium owners to decide if it is worth it. |
|
| reply to camaro92
said by camaro92:correct, the motto of the isp's and telco's "no competition no choice and the big one no price drops. yep,it's even valid in canada :/ |
|
| reply to Z80A
cablevision owns the Rangers and the Knicks, talk what you know, they hold all the marbles and they have been holding them tight! |
|
